> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Kouhei Sutou
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:28 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Perl milters?
>
> > Another consideration was that I do not know how t
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of KingT
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 7:29 PM
> To: 'postfix users'
> Cc: 'Noel Jones'
> Subject: RE: Domain keys for postfix mail server
>
> Thanks your reply Noel Jones
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Robert Krig
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 3:03 AM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: Strange SASL Authentication Issue
>
> I think I might have identified the problem.
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Peter Blair
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:21 PM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: Including state information in Received fields
>
> I've found that people don't
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:46 PM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: Including state information in Received fields
>
> > But design issues aside, w
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:04 PM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: Including state information in Received fields
>
> Postfix writes the Received:
Hi,
I'm co-authoring a draft that would add supplementary information to Received
header fields indicating when a message enters some kind of administrative
hold. This would be useful to people looking through trace data to figure out
why a message sat on a machine for some time, if the reason
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 4:50 PM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: Postfix and MIMEdefang; per-recipient treatment of messages in a
> milter enviro
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 2:23 PM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: Postfix and MIMEdefang; per-recipient treatment of messages in a
> milter enviro
Just heard back from them:
"Murray, FYI, I was just notified by the correct person within eBay that this
is being fixed now. Thank you again for forwarding it along."
-MSK
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Murray S. Kuch
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 2:27 PM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: Milter issue with Postfix 2.8.7 and pymilter (compiled against
> Sendmail 8.14.4)
I've forwarded this to some standards and practices compliance people inside
eBay/PayPal. I bet they'll be quite interested. I know that they were
planning to do some work on their DK/DKIM infrastructure at some point. Maybe
this was a side-effect.
Will advise when they reply.
-MSK
From:
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Josef Karliak
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 3:50 AM
> To: Robert Schetterer
> Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: dkim-milter verify, but don't sign.
>
>Hi
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of David Southwell
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 9:41 AM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Cc: /dev/rob0
> Subject: Re: executive parser (was: Re: spf configuration woes)
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Simon Brereton
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 2:36 PM
> To: postfix users
> Subject: Re: Content filter after DKIM proxy
>
> And I'd like to implement
> dnssec as well
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Kris Deugau
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:06 AM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: Authenticated sender and milter
>
> man mimedefang-filter has the complete list
Wietse's advice is the first thing I would try: Eliminate anything that
modifies your message after signing. The most common signature failure in our
analysis apart from DNS setup problems has been a message that was malformed in
the first place, so when it gets "fixed" someplace downstream, th
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 1:35 PM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: libsrs patch for Postfix
>
> > > Instead of tearing up Postfix, consider imple
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Kris Deugau
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:32 AM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: What does Postfix stamp...
>
> Not to mention, at least in my experien
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Michael C. Robinson
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 4:31 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: What does Postfix stamp...
>
> With amavis, I guess that postfix
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 6:12 AM
> To: Hieronim Sokolski
> Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: SRS for Postfix
>
> If you find a 100% Mil
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Jeroen Geilman
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 9:03 AM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Request For Port 587
>
> This is now a Draft standard, meaning you'd
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 6:36 PM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: Outbound mail rate limits by user
>
> No matter what MTA you use, it will need to
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Steve Fatula
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:48 PM
> To: Postfix Users
> Subject: Order of milter execution
>
> Using Postfix 2.8.4, I have the following options to smt
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Fatula [mailto:compconsult...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:15 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; Postfix Users
> Subject: Re: Postscreen, SPF and DKIM?
>
> Care to elaborate? Clearly, this is not possible to do in postsc
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Steve Fatula
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:12 AM
> To: Postfix Users
> Subject: Postscreen, SPF and DKIM?
>
> However, it is good practice to reject mail that fails s
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Frank Bonnet
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 10:08 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Large ISP which use Postfix
>
> Anyone knows what Google or Hotmail us
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Jack
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 11:10 AM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: RE: Error 550
>
> > > I searched the all knowing google but wasn't able to find wha
OpenDKIM has ample documentation. Did you try working with that first?
http://www.opendkim.org/docs
-MSK
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of kshitij mali
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 1:04 AM
To: Patrick Ben Koetter
Cc: postfix-users@postfi
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Rich Wales
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 9:18 AM
> To: postfix users
> Subject: Re: security vulnerability : SMTP daemon supports EHLO
>
> I can imagine that some hackers m
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Vincent Lefevre
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 12:47 AM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: SMTP client host name spoofing
>
> I really think it is a bad idea to
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Jeroen van Aart
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:21 PM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: bcc: header
>
> > The post service doesn't care what Cc: you write on your lett
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Reindl Harald
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:00 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: bcc: header
>
> Am 23.03.2011 20:55, schrieb Jeroen van Aart:
> > I t
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:21 AM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: Non-smtp milter application and sasl macros
>
> Well, it seems obvious no
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Ralf Hildebrandt
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:55 AM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Problems with postfix while sending emails
>
> * Rafael Azevedo :
>
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Victor Duchovni
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:02 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Message is modified after after-queue filter
>
> > My current work-ar
For what it's worth, sendmail's implementation encodes the current time down to
the second plus the pid of the handling process in its queue IDs. A collision
then could only happen if the same pid got re-used twice in the same second.
It doesn't include the inode or any random data.
Details:
A technology called BATV was proposed but never got widespread adoption (so
far). There is at least one open source filter that implements it that you
could try, though it is unmaintained. It has a few side effects, so read up
on it before throwing the switch.
From: owner-postfix-us...@postf
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Roman Gelfand
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:29 AM
> To: postfix users list
> Subject: Sender Reputation
>
> Does anyone know of a server/software compatible with po
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Jack Bates
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 3:33 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Can a milter split one message into multiple messages?
>
> Can a "milter"
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 9:52 PM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: What's done with malformed headers
>
> The first line that is "not a header" is
tfix.org]
On Behalf Of Jeroen Geilman
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:31 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: What's done with malformed headers
On 09/28/2010 10:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
(If this would be better asked on postfix-devel, let me know and I'll repost it
ther
(If this would be better asked on postfix-devel, let me know and I'll repost it
there.)
What does Postfix do with a message that has a malformed header? If for
example there's a header that's found to contain a line whose first character
is alphanumeric (thus not a continuation) but contains n
43 matches
Mail list logo
